>>63968851
>>63969027
you're studiously ignoring the Nike systems anon posted aren't you?
there's also Hawk
those could kill Soviet bombers easily, although they wouldn't do so well against low-level fast types

>>63969036
>that setup barely even worked in staged exercises
balanced by 70s-era NATO SAMs not being able to kill anything faster than a bomber

>>63969037
>this is peak comedy
quite, and I'm not going to engage with the comedian any longer